Since you're too uptight to expand your mind with sensimilla I'll give you a clue.

Not by a long shot.

Not only was the election closer that I predicted but there were Congressional tendencies I found interesting. In Miami there was speculation that at least one of their three Cuban Republicans in the House would lose. None did. However in the district my SoFla home is in the Democrat incumbent Ron Klein only received 55% of the vote! He came closer to an upset loss than the Cubans who were expected to lose. Klein's opponent was a black Republican (in an all white district) who raised little since it was an anticipated blow-out. I'm friggin' shocked that the guy got more than 38%.

On Chicago's North Shore, GOP rep Mark Kirk was considered a dead man walking. The district is affluent but Jewish and socially liberal. Kirk came close to losing in 2006 to an Obama like black candidate, Dan Seals. In a rematch yesterday Kirk won by a BIGGER margin than in 2006 and I'd imagine Obama scored 60% in the 10th Congressional.

Nationally Obama's plurality came from California, New York and Illinois combined. I thought a week ago this would be a Reagan like landslide. Not in the same ballpark.

For the 12th election in a row the Democrat candidate failed to garner a majority of white voters.

It's only America's third world descent into a sea of black/brown that keeps the Democrats even remotely viable nationally. Of course that demographic is here to stay but if the economy continues tanking-the carnage hasn't even started yet-Latinos will hop off that Dem train REAL quick. Mexicans want JOBS and jobs are going to be in short supply.

As a Republican, am I heartened by yesterday? Of course not. Depressed? Not by a long shot. MUCH, MUCH better than i anticipated one week ago.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you are principally referring to rural, uneducated, bible-thumping, gun-toting whites. Now there's an ideal, eh?

More...

Hardly. Obama probably didn't carry the white male vote (as has NO Democrat since 1964) in more than a handful of states. Even in California it appears he did no better than split non-Latino white men evenly with McCain.

Of course I know that "rural, uneducated, bible-thumping, gun-toting whites" are no match for productive, intellectual titans such as urban, uneducated, bible-thumping, gun-toting blacks.

Hardly. Obama probably didn't carry the white male vote (as has NO Democrat since 1964) in more than a handful of states. Even in California it appears he did no better than split non-Latino white men evenly with McCain.

Of course I know that "rural, uneducated, bible-thumping, gun-toting whites" are no match for productive, intellectual titans such as urban, uneducated, bible-thumping, gun-toting blacks.

More...

What are you trying to say? That white men don't vote Democrats because of the civil rights bill? Obama did better than any Democrat post civil rights movement.

How broad is Obama's victory? Obama won 54 percent of vote in the Midwest, 57 percent of the vote in the West, and 59 percent of the Northeast. The only region that McCain won was the South.

What are you trying to say? That white men don't vote Democrats because of the civil rights bill? Obama did better than any Democrat post civil rights movement.

How broad is Obama's victory? Obama won 54 percent of vote in the Midwest, 57 percent of the vote in the West, and 59 percent of the Northeast. The only region that McCain won was the South.

More...

No but in a weird coincidence the LAST TIME white males gave over 50% to a Dem was the YEAR of the Civil Rights Act. LBJ was the last and in fact the ONLY since FDR vs. Dewey in 1944.

Exit polls aren't out with comprehensive data yet but from what I can piece together based on assumptions (solving x type stuff) Obama didn't do any better or worse with white men than Kerry or Gore. The gender gap was BIG but that can be a misnomer too because minority women vote at a higher rate than minority men. Thus a portion of Obama's success with women could be racial rather than gender.

No but in a weird coincidence the LAST TIME white males gave over 50% to a Dem was the YEAR of the Civil Rights Act. LBJ was the last and in fact the ONLY since FDR vs. Dewey in 1944.

Exit polls aren't out with comprehensive data yet but from what I can piece together based on assumptions (solving x type stuff) Obama didn't do any better or worse with white men than Kerry or Gore. The gender gap was BIG but that can be a misnomer too because minority women vote at a higher rate than minority men. Thus a portion of Obama's success with women could be racial rather than gender.

That's EXACTLY what I said. He was only 4 ahead of Kerry and Kerry LOST! Clinton's 37 and 38 were with Perot splitting things a third way. 41% as a winner is abysmal. (btw check the source of your Gore, I think he was 38%)

That's EXACTLY what I said. He was only 4 ahead of Kerry and Kerry LOST! Clinton's 37 and 38 were with Perot splitting things a third way. 41% as a winner is abysmal. (btw check the source of your Gore, I think he was 38%)

Hardly. Obama probably didn't carry the white male vote (as has NO Democrat since 1964) in more than a handful of states. Even in California it appears he did no better than split non-Latino white men evenly with McCain.

Of course I know that "rural, uneducated, bible-thumping, gun-toting whites" are no match for productive, intellectual titans such as urban, uneducated, bible-thumping, gun-toting blacks.

More...

Well, my hunch of a Mccain sneak in was utterly wrong, but i had no idea gang bangers were god-botherer's to.
Cripes.